Lets here comments.
I'm under the belief that a president currently in office should not be able to campaign while on a countries payroll.
My Reasons:
1.) We're basically paying for all their flights to their campaining.
2.) While campainging, their job of running the country isn't being done.
3.) Past Performance should be all that's necessary for a presidents reelaction.
4.) Any campaigning that is to be done should be restricted to weekends, and covered by the president themself.
Talk it up!
-Chris
Agreed.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Agreed.
I am starting to do this more and more....lol
Josh
SLK 32
I'd say that's pretty fair.
Then other politicians (like senators) shouldn't be able to compaign for the presidency either.
^^^ why not? Do it under the same restrictions as the encumbant (or encumberant as the case may be) President.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
You're smart enough to see how ridiculous this is. Don't be stupid.
Senators are on the countries payroll also
While campaigning they're not doing their jobs
The presidency isn't a 9 to 5 job so you can't say that the president could take weekends off.
New opponents bring new issues which the current president should have the opportunity to counter.
Air Force one is a privilege given to the president for his security and to allow him to do his job while traveling.
If you would like to try and get the campaign rules changed then by all means, become a US citizen and cast your vote, lobby, write your congressman, etc. Until then, you don't have a horse in this race.
Labotomi: True, I just like to stir things up
When an encumbant President is on the campaign trail, he's not doing his job either, it's his functionaries... I'm not blind to that. Did you not think Senators or Congresspersons that are on the same trail delegate their tasks to their lackeys?
I just find it interesting that the people are expected to pick up the flight, security detail and press tabs while a sitting President seeks re-election. In Canada, the Challenger Jet that is reserved for the Prime Minister, is paid for out of the PM's pocket (ie fuel, maintenance and pilots) during campaign time (yes, people made THAT big of a stink about it), but other than that, one a party leader will incur travel expenses... It's done by riding (district) otherwise.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Labotomi: True, I just like to stir things up
When an encumbant President is on the campaign trail, he's not doing his job either, it's his functionaries... I'm not blind to that. Did you not think Senators or Congresspersons that are on the same trail delegate their tasks to their lackeys?
The statement the op made about the president not performing his job while campaigning applies to other politicians if it applies to the president. It's not a valid argument and that was the point of my statement applying it to others.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I just find it interesting that the people are expected to pick up the flight, security detail and press tabs while a sitting President seeks re-election. In Canada, the Challenger Jet that is reserved for the Prime Minister, is paid for out of the PM's pocket (ie fuel, maintenance and pilots) during campaign time (yes, people made THAT big of a stink about it), but other than that, one a party leader will incur travel expenses... It's done by riding (district) otherwise.
Does he pick up the tab out of his personal pocket or is it out of campaign funds? The cost of the flights with accompanying secret service detail and security sweep of whatever location he was campaingning at would quickly exhaust the annual salary that we pay the pres. It's not a viable option to ask the president to fly commercial airlines with just a bodyguard to protect him to campaign in a location that people know he's going to without any additional security measures. The only way this could possibly happen is if the risk was small that any harm might come to him. While I wish this could be the case, it isn't and probably won't be anytime soon. No matter how well liked the president is, there are always crazies out there who would plot to harm/kill him. Just look at what one nutjob tried to do hoping to impress Jodi Foster.
I think campaign spending is out of control and wish it were limited to a fraction of it's current amount. Limiting the overall spending is a good idea, but the incumbent president is always going to have the advantage of using the assets to which we have given him access.
Labotomi wrote:If you would like to try and get the campaign rules changed then by all means, become a US citizen and cast your vote, lobby, write your congressman, etc. Until then, you don't have a horse in this race.
FYI: I am a US citizen since May, 13th 1981 (birth).
I don't believe things will change, I'm just stating my opinion and putting it up for discussion. No deffinative end needed, just a debate, because their fun
On another note it's a very good point that the president to a degree is Hamstrung by the security we place around him, thus making it very difficult for personal travel arrangements specifically.
-Chris
IamRascal wrote:Labotomi wrote:If you would like to try and get the campaign rules changed then by all means, become a US citizen and cast your vote, lobby, write your congressman, etc. Until then, you don't have a horse in this race.
FYI: I am a US citizen since May, 13th 1981 (birth).
Sorry, I should have made it clear that this was a jab at our canadian friend (GAM).
Labotomi wrote:The statement the op made about the president not performing his job while campaigning applies to other politicians if it applies to the president. It's not a valid argument and that was the point of my statement applying it to others.
Well, you're assuming that they do their jobs in the first place.
Labotomi wrote:
Does he pick up the tab out of his personal pocket or is it out of campaign funds?
Depends... if it's for the election of being party head, it's out of his own pocket, if it's campaigning for Prime Minister (ie. supporting the party candidate running for a seat in the house of commons), then its out of the Party's election fund.
Quote:
The cost of the flights with accompanying secret service detail and security sweep of whatever location he was campaingning at would quickly exhaust the annual salary that we pay the pres.
Suffice it to say: If you're in the Oval office, you're not hurting for cash, nor are you there for the pay. I cannot at all think of a common person (with the possible exception of Dick Nixon, but that's a different story) that got the job of president. Every one of them has had either extremely well heeled backers or had very strong party campaign support.
Quote:
It's not a viable option to ask the president to fly commercial airlines with just a bodyguard to protect him to campaign in a location that people know he's going to without any additional security measures. The only way this could possibly happen is if the risk was small that any harm might come to him. While I wish this could be the case, it isn't and probably won't be anytime soon. No matter how well liked the president is, there are always crazies out there who would plot to harm/kill him. Just look at what one nutjob tried to do hoping to impress Jodi Foster.
True, but, Asking the people to pay for that isn't fair either. Remunerance for campaign activities is a good idea... basically, if it's not immediately relating to the duties of the office of the President (ie, visiting disaster areas, trade negotiations etc) he oughtta pony up the cash, if for nothing else, Airforce One's maintenance and fuel.
Quote:
I think campaign spending is out of control and wish it were limited to a fraction of it's current amount. Limiting the overall spending is a good idea, but the incumbent president is always going to have the advantage of using the assets to which we have given him access.
Sadly true. And trying to bring about campaign reform is like asking people to vote in tax reforms where they lose more money. It ain't gonna happen. I suppose you could topple the party system, and maybe do things the way they were supposed to be done, but that's not kosher apparently.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
i don't think ANY candidate should use public funds to campain.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light�]i don't think ANY candidate should use public funds to campain.This would even further skew the importance of special interest group donations.
At least if the advantaged comes from the tools of the office of the president there is no group expecting to be repaid.
well, let me take that a step further:
1) ALL candidates are present at the debates...not just the blohards and the bombasts.
2) Each candidate must write a 3-page summary on their posisitions of everything, in reference to the job as president.
3) No advertising for the position at all.
Of course, if we did the smart thing and got rid of political parties in the first place we wouldn't be having these problems.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Ok so if we are going to use the countries paying their salaries arguement then our represenatives from the senate and house should have be in all sessions and vote on all matters brought before their respctive branches. I mean after all we are paying their salaries. Think about John Robers nomination and how that happened. While we are at it lets go back to popular vote and elminate the electoral college. Just a couple more ideas to think about.
i personally would like it to be full popular vote.
but, let me expound on my previous post, item 2:
Each candidate will be placed into a room, with no one else, without any hinting and prompting, and will be forced to write out, in their own handwriting, a 3 page+ summary on their positions on all of the issues affecting America. None of the speechwrite b.s or prompting, that sort of thing. a copy of each is sent with the voters pamphlet, so the voters can get a first-hand look at how the candidates position is...
would definitly make things intresting to say the least--i'm sure a few of the candidates in the past 200+ years would have made the comedic honor roll.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Yes I think that is a great idea. LOL sure would have kept Bush out of office. Well anyway enough about that. I agree though something like th at would be a great way to see what a canidate really has to bring to the table .
Electoral College is a sham... Popular Vote should rule...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
<puts on flame suit for those that have their tongue firnly implanted into Bush's anal sphincter>
I would just find it humorous to see Bush's pages being brohgt to you in crayon or fingerpaint.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Electoral College is a sham... Popular Vote should rule...
I agree however I have a different idea. Every state no matter how populated gets 10 electoral college votes. Break the states up into 10 sections without using population as a guide. Instead of giving the the majority winner of the state all of the electoral votes just give them what they won say like 60% of the state of Ohio voted for Bush and 0% Voted for Kerry just give each of them 6 and 4 electoral votes instead of the full 10.
That still allows for the possibility for a person who did not recieve popular vote to win or lose say you divide california up and all of the outlying areas vote for canidate A while all of the populated areas vote for canidate B then you have the issue where a person who won popular vote in a state doesnt win that state. You cant basicly void the votes of the millions of people because all of the small areas voted a different way.
